Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Same caution here as the last time I posted about Korea news: I have no expertise in these matters whatsoever. But, perhaps because Korea has been a policy sideshow for official Washington, a lot of what does get written about the Koreas seems somewhat less caught in a intellectual straightjacket than what we hear about such chewed over, if ill-digested, regions as the Middle East. Hence the title of this post.

I found this an interesting conundrum:

Imagine, in a thought experiment, that no country other than North Korea has nuclear weapons today. How would this change the practical policy choices and actions available to those involved? I would suggest the answer is surprisingly little, if at all. To begin with, existing nuclear weapon states' arsenals (and the U.S. arsenal in particular) have already failed in what many believe is one of their primary missions--dissuading countries such as North Korea from building a nuclear weapon.

One of Podvig's Bulletin colleagues made an even more challenging suggestion:

The ... assumption, that North Korea essentially has the bomb today, is also problematic. That assumption derives from the widespread belief that given the right materials even a team of college physics students could build one, so a state should have no trouble at all. But this ignores the infinite capacity of neo-patrimonial or "sultanistic" regimes such as the one in Pyongyang to turn a sure thing into a long shot.

I think of Hymans as applying an "origins of World War I" hypothesis to the Korean situation. In 1914, complex modern European societies set up a series of assumptions and trip wires that put them on a path to a war that few sought, but none could interrupt once they entered on what they had defined as their national critical paths. Hymans sees something like that developing in East Asia. The irrational strains in each of the societies involved could come into play. Scary prospect; worth pondering.

Meanwhile, at least some who know point out there is no prospect of North Korea's neighbor, China, taking a hard stance against nuclear weapons development.

...there's a silly assumption in Washington that our interests (no nukes in North Korea) are the same as China's. But they're not. China's first interest in North Korea is making sure the Kim regime doesn't collapse. China's second interest? Making sure the Kim regime doesn't collapse. From Beijing's perspective, nukes in North Korea rank somewhere around 10th.

...We can't outsource the solution to North Korea's nukes to China because China views its interests a lot differently than we do.

The articles I've excerpted above made my picture of what is happening in an unfamiliar part of the world more nuanced. Another contribution to the Bulletin was discouraging:

Many in Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul say Kim Jong Il will never give up his weapons or his nuclear and missile programs. The speculation encourages him to think he won't have to. The fact is, with the possible exception of Kim Jong Il himself, nobody truly knows. But the United States needs to find out.

The only way to do so is to probe through sustained diplomatic give-and-take.

What's this blog about?

My musings on current events, current projects, current anxieties and current delights.

I started this under the Bush regime when any grain of sand thrown into the gears of the over-reaching imperial state seemed worthwhile.

I have worked to elect more and better Democrats -- and to hammer the shit out of them once we get them in office so they do the things their constituents want and need. It's a big job.

I have endured the dashed potential for a more transformational regime under Obama. The man has made himself an accomplice in the imperial crimes of his predecessor as well as committing his own. He has also almost certainly been the most progressive president most of us will live to see. I fear we'll look back on his years in office with mild gratitude for a respite from national leadership that was habitually stupid and vicious, as well as wrong.

Visitors here will find a lot of commentary on books I'm reading. I am very intentionally reading intensively offline these days. When it feels hard to find direction, it's time to learn something new.

Now available

About Me

I'm a progressive political activist who runs trails and climbs mountains whenever any are available. I've had the privilege to work for justice in Central America (Nicaragua and El Salvador), in South Africa, in the fields of California with the United Farmworkers Union, and in the cities and schools of my own country. I'm a Christian of the Episcopalian flavor; we think and argue a lot. For work, I've done a bit of it all: run an old fashioned switch-board; remodeled buildings and poured concrete; edited and published periodicals, reports and books; and organized for electoral campaigns. I am currently an independent consultant to organizations seeking "help when you have to make a fight."